Anyone see Paxman interviewing Russell Brand?

[vtsnowedin]

He lives in the U.S. and rich people don't pay shit in taxes here-- they think they do, but they don't. Unless he's using his money to act on his words, he hasn't done anything worth applauding. Doesn't vote, doesn't really know anything about politics, and is completely full of himself-- and he's not even funny! Why is anyone asking this rich guy's opinion on how to fix the world?

Seems a fair point.

A fair point perhaps but it would be better if it were based on fact.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/ec ... ich-taxes/

[woodburner]

From your link:

But the rich are able to take advantage of tax breaks too. That's why Williams said there's a popular notion that the wealthy are somehow cheating the tax man. In fact, the Tax Policy Center found last year that there about 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million that were not paying anything at all.

Maybe not a great proportion of the total, but still relevant.

[bigjim]

Cambridge.

Julian Huppert- current MP for Cambridge- is one of the better MPs out there I reckon. Find someone else for Brand to defeat. Clegg? His Sheffield Hallam constituency might have a large student vote

[biffvernon]

For facebook users:
https://www.facebook.com/IAgreeWithRussell

[UndercoverElephant]

Cambridge.

Julian Huppert- current MP for Cambridge- is one of the better MPs out there I reckon. Find someone else for Brand to defeat. Clegg? His Sheffield Hallam constituency might have a large student vote

Excellent choice. If there's one politician who deserves to be kicked out of Westminster by Russell Brand, it's Clegg.

[clv101]

Clegg had a majority of 15,284 last time, he's relatively safe. Need a LibDem seat in a student area with a small majority.

[UndercoverElephant]

Clegg had a majority of 15,284 last time, he's relatively safe. Need a LibDem seat in a student area with a small majority.

Undoubtedly you're right that there are more vulnerable seats, but I personally suspect that Clegg would be in serious trouble if Russell Brand stood against him. Why? Here are the last results from that seat:

Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg 27,324
Conservative Nicola Bates 12,040
Labour Jack Scott 8,228
UKIP Nigel James 1,195
Green Steve Barnard 919

The tory vote will either stay about the same, or they'll lose some to UKIP. The Greens probably would not stand at all against Russell Brand, and he'd pick up nearly the entire green vote. He'd probably also pick up the lion's share of the existing labour vote, given that he is calling for a leftist revolution. He would also prompt people who do not normally vote at all, or currently vote for obscure parties, to vote for him. So I'm guessing he'd already be starting from a base of about 8000 before we take the libdem vote into account. Then when you consider that libdems can protest-vote in this seat without serious risk of letting a tory in? If just one third of the lib dem vote (and remember how pissed off the people who voted libdem are with Clegg!) switched to Brand, Clegg would be in trouble.

I reckon he'd lose it.

Most of the chunk of the electorate that normally votes libdem are utterly f****d off with the libdems in general and Clegg in particular. You know why. They had one "flagship policy", and it was to do with the cost of higher education. The moment they got elected, and were faced with actually governing, out the window it went. This might have been acceptable if they had, in return, won the bigger prize of electoral reform. But they didn't, and this was a direct failure of Clegg himself, who was swindled by the Tories into agreeing to a referendum he was always going to lose, because the Tories were always going to play it dirty. And he doesn't care, because at the end of the day he's going to be alright, Jack. At the end of the day, even if he loses his seat, he's still already got a load of money behind him, and won't have trouble getting a nice, well-paid job.

[vtsnowedin]

From your link:

But the rich are able to take advantage of tax breaks too. That's why Williams said there's a popular notion that the wealthy are somehow cheating the tax man. In fact, the Tax Policy Center found last year that there about 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million that were not paying anything at all.

Maybe not a great proportion of the total, but still relevant.

No not relevant at all. The top one percent of America comes to about three million people. If just 4000 of them can avoid taxes, by selling losers to raise cash while letting their winners ride ,only puts off the day when they will have to pay capital gains on the winners. The fact remains that the lions share of the taxes that are paid are paid by the rich.

[woodburner]

No, they were households where the income was over $1 million. They were not just offsetting losses, they had a large income. If they had losses, that would be deducted from their income, unless the Tax Policy Center is twisting the truth.

[vtsnowedin]

No, they were households where the income was over $1 million. They were not just offsetting losses, they had a large income. If they had losses, that would be deducted from their income, unless the Tax Policy Center is twisting the truth.

You misunderstand capital gains taxes.
Let’s say out trust fund baby has 100 million invested in a broad range of stocks. The whole portfolio gained ten percent last year for an income of ten million. Are the taxes due this year on that ten million? No, they only come due when he sells each stock. But let us say that TFB wants to impress a potential trophy wife and decides to spend the ten million this year on private jet trips to the Riviera. He'll have to cash out some stocks to raise the cash to pay these bills. His whole portfolio made a profit, but not every stock in the mix did. Rather then sell the stocks that are winners he will sell ten million worth of stocks that have lost him money from the time he bought them. Capital gains taxes are calculated on the difference between your initial cost and your selling price. He would owe no taxes on his losers so he is smiling all the way to the WE ARE DODGY at Monaco. He still has 100 million invested in winning stocks which is good for the economy and why the tax code is written as it is plus he is living in grand style.

[woodburner]

Was that a mistake or an attempted slight-of-hand? If he had $100M and sold $10m, he would have $90m left in winning stocks.

[vtsnowedin]

Was that a mistake or an attempted slight-of-hand? If he had $100M and sold $10m, he would have $90m left in winning stocks.

Not slight of hand or a mistake. Remember that the original investment gained ten percent or ten million dollars last year.

[woodburner]

Fair enough. He's a bit of a plonker though, that type of woman will grab as much as possible then move on to the next victim. I've got a real diamond and she cost waaaaayyyyyy less than $10m, and is probably worth much more.

[Totally_Baffled]

Guys helps me understand here.

One of the points Russell makes is redistribution of wealth. The gap between the richest in society and the poorest is already shocking and getting wider. I understand and agree (to a point - we still have to have incentives for people to work hard and reward talent etc)

But isn't he worth something like $15m+?

Has he started to voluntarily handing his money out to the poor? Or does this principle only apply to other peoples wealth?

In the interview he calls for some sort of centralised, state controlled distributors of wealth ("admin bods"). Can he really champion such a thing when is he filthy rich himself? Is there a credibility issue here?

Just asking. I'm not having a pop!

[biffvernon]

This is the fallacy of the hypocrite.

The exhortation to be good is not lessened for being spoken by a sinner.

The important point, which Brand himself emphasised, is not that he has the answers but that he is recognising the problems, something that most folk fail to do.